Posted on 02/10/2005 5:55:51 AM PST by Pikamax
It's in the story: that he claimed to have a degree from a program that didn't exist. Sorry, I probably shouldn't have used "credentials," as that word implies WHITE HOUSE credentials. I mean he claimed to have had a degree from a journalism program that didn't exist---or, giving him the benefit of the doubt, he mis-labeled the program that he got the degree from.
......they wouldn't be going after Gannon so hard if they weren't trying to say he was a tool of this WH in the Plame "leak".
This is the MSM's valiant attempt to deflect attention from the CNN's news chief's treasonous remarks about our military in Iraq killing journalists. It's the Clintoon method that they learned at the feet of their master.
Blankley is currently Brock's target.
(This example happens to be from DD1879 -- the form for background investigations up to Top Secret.)
Don't tell the idiots at dailyKOS, though -- let them go crazy chasing their own tails!! LOL!!
149 posted on 02/10/2005 8:25:54 AM PST by TXnMA
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1339944/posts?page=149#149
There is some similarity in the faces and the bald/shaved heads, but until you see a full picture of Gannon, you aren't going to be able to tell. Do the bodies match? Can you tell from three head shots?
Dan Rather has been posing as a journalist for how long? The Loser Stream Media is shaking in their boots at their lost influence. There should be bloggers at the White House Briefings.....
IMHO this isn't about Gannon at all. They're just using him to try to get Karl Rove. The proof of this is their tryaing to connect Gannon to the Plame affair.
Catherine Crier and David Brock just finished obsessing about this on her Court TV show. She said, "I don't care whether it's a democrat or a republican...this is wrong!"
It's really fun when our side makes a blunder, (assuming this is), to watch their side try to manufacture a scandal of Clinton proportions. But the real laugh factor pay-off comes when the public don't buy what they're selling.
Wonder what Catherine and David think about CNN's Easton Jordan? Nary a word about real collusion between politicians and their media pals.
!
Since Rove has nothing to do with the Plame affair, that is incorrect. They tried to tie Rove to it to get Bush. That failed so now they're trying to tie Gannon to it to get Bush.
That is failing because the truth always outs and the truth is the Plame business was a get Bush scheme from the start, period.
Oh, did you see Jeff Gannon did an interview with Wolf Blitzer on CNN about an hour ago...LIVE.
You couldn't tell by the title of the thread, though.
Read this thread for notes: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1340582/posts
I was dismayed a couple years ago to find out Catherine Crier is a partisan idiot. What was the issue she was so wrong about? I can't think of it right now, but it had to do with this administration, too. I don't believe her disclaimer about not caring about party affiliation or sympathy or she would take issue with some of the questions other reporters ask.
Coming up on Fox. The panel discusses.
Got it!
Making notes on another thread and will cut and past them here when the segment is done.
Notes on Fox Panel discussion:
Fox panel on it.
Brit cites the Mark Twain example of nom de plume.
Bill Sammon is part of the panel today and is giving background.
He says what this is about is the rest of the press corps is rankled by the conservative tilt from Gannon while they are mostly liberal. He says the clumsily worded question pushed enabled them to pounce with aid of liberal bloggers.
Sammon explains the setting up of sites (by Gannon for a previous employer) that were never launched. Brit says "so he was not a pornographer" and Sammon says "apparently not", this was for a client.
Jeff Birnbaum now picks up and explains how credentials are awarded.
Now Charles Krauthammer...two issues: Should opinion journalists allowed in? Answer: Yes, they should. Brit cites "like Helen Thomas".
Second issue, what journalist entities...online? Yes, like Slate should be allowed. Online outlets should be represented.
I must have missed that; can I have the Cliff Notes?
He described billionaire philanthropist George Soros as "a left wing crank," "a robber baron," "a pirate capitalist" and "a Jew who figured out a way to survive the Holocaust."
Of course, Brock fails to mention that the "philanthropist" is bankrolling his whole organization. That's failing to expose a conflict of interest, BTW, for all of those fans of journalism.
That group is a nasty piece of work, making no bones of the fact that they target individuals for slime.
But there is good news, for FReeping. They are hiring. :)
Novak is certainly protecting someone we haven't heard of. He claims the guy isn't political, and I belive Novak on that score.
We don't know if he's told the grand jury. We do know he has not been held in contempt like some others but he won't say if he's appeared or not. I don't think we can conclude he's protecting anyone. He may well have testified who his sources were (there were two--non WH).
Well, I predicted this today.....so I guess I am behind the times.
Can Brit Hume be far behind?
Early on on Crossfire, Novak said that IF THEY ASKED HIM, he would name names.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.